Planning Statement 04/00669/B

Conversion of Farm Buildings to form 3 Dwellings and also a Dwellings and BUILDING CONTROL Ballakilley Farm Church Road Port St Mary IM9 5LW

Job No.: 1.1474

Planning Statement

An Application in Principle No. 01/01987/A was submitted on 13th December 2001 and subsequently approved by the Committee on 18th February 2002.

An application to extend the original period of 2 years was made on 21st January 2004 and approved by the Committee on 5th February 2004.

A further Application in Detail No. 03/01340/B was submitted on 18th September 2003 and subsequently refused by the Committee on 20th January 2004.

The reason given for refusal was

It is considered that the proposal by reason of the elevational treatment does not demonstrate the retention of the character and appearance of the buildings. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Planning Circular 3/89 Renovation of Building in the Countryside.

A meeting was then held on 2nd February 2004 with Mrs F Mullen to discuss the refusal and establish the Committee's objections, which were summarised as follows:

• The Planning Committee would prefer rooflights of appropriate design in lieu of the dormers.
• The garages to units 1 & 2 should be removed as the Committee felt they detracted from the original flat face of the existing buildings.

• When the extension was considered essential accommodation as in the case of the lounge/staircase to unit No.1 then this should be reduced as much as possible.
• Any new application should indicate the extent of new tree planting and species proposed.

This new application now seeks to address the Committee's concerns in that:

1. Garages to units I & 3 have been removed.
2. Rooflights of an appropriate pattern have been used in lieu of dormers. Smaller windows have been introduced to provide an appearance less uniform and more of a vernacular style.
3. The lounge area has been reduced to unit I.
4. After meetings and correspondence with DAFF the new tree planting is now indicated on the drawings.

We feel that the principles of 3/89 are now fully adhered to ie:

• An alternative use of redundant agricultural buildings has been found and that use has been established by the Approval in Principle.
• The renovation/development now seeks to establish the original form of the buildings.
• Materials used are entirely sympathetic to those already used on the buildings and in many cases seeks to re-establish the original materials.
• The extensions have been reduced in area and can now be considered 'modest'.

We hope the application is now satisfactory and the Committee can now feel that the application can now be approved.